ON THE VALIDITY OF PSEUDOEMILIANIA LACUNOSA KAMPI'NER 1963 EX GARTNER 1967

Shirley E. van Heck, NAM, Assen, The Netherlands
Some time ago, I was asked to look into the validity of the name Pseudoemiliania lacunosa.
As this is a rather complicated case, a fully documented account is presented here.

Kamptner (1963) introduced the genus Ellipsoplacolithus as follows (p. 171, translated):
Ellipsoplacolithus nov. gen. (paragen.J.
Elliptical calcareous bodies, that are probably built placolithically or at least represent
derivations of the placolithic type, of which, however, the generic relationship could not yet bedetermined. This provisional unit is primarily intended for electron micrographs. Most of theforms assigned to it may in reality belong to the genus Coccolithus.
Type species: E. lacunosus nov. spec. (paraspec.).
Because Kamptner clearly intended Ellipsoplacolithus to be a provisional generic name, it
is invalid under ICBN Art.34.1, which reads:
34.1. A name is not validly published (a) when it is not accepted by the author in theoriginal publication; (b) when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance ofthe group concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the group (so-calledprovisional name); (c) ...
In the same publication Kamptner introduced the species E. lacunosus (p.172), anddesignated it the type species of Ellipsoplacolithus. No holotype was indicated but, because only
one specimen was illustrated (Pl.9, Fig.50), this may be regarded as the holotype of the species
following Art.7.3 of the ICBN:
7.3. A holotype is the one specimen or illustration used by the. author or designated by him
as the nomenclatural type. ....
However, because the name of the genus was not validly published the name of the species
is not valid either, following ICBN Art. 43.1:
43.1. A name of a taxon below the rank of genus is not validly published unless the nameof the genus or species to which it is assigned is validly published at the same time or wasvalidly published previously.
Gartner (1969) introduced the genus Pseudoemiliania, including P. lacunosa as the onlyspecies. Hence P. lacunosa is automatically the type species of Pseudoemiliania. It is not clear
what Gartner intended. If he regarded Ellipsoplacolithus and lacunosus as valid names,
Pseudoemiliania would have been a junior synonym of Ellipsoplacolithus. If, on the other hand
he was aware that E. lacunosus was not valid, why would he have treated it as valid, referring
it to Kamptner by quoting it as Pseudoemiliania lacunosa (Kamptner ), treating it as a new
combination?
Since a name that is not valid is not available, and therefore basically treated as nonexistent, this would make Pseudoemiliania lacunosa invalid. (Art. 12.1: A name of a taxon has
no status under this Code unless it is validly published). As the genus is monospecific, thename Pseudoemiliania would also be invalid.
Gartner (1977) defended the validity of Pseudoemiliania lacunosa by referring to ICBN Art.66(no longer existent) and Art.68:
Art. 68.1. A specific name is not illegitimate merely because its epithet was originallycombined with an illegitimate generic name, but is to be taken into consideration for purposesof priority if the epithet and the corresponding combination are in other respects in accordancewith the rules.
However, both articles deal with illegitimate names, rather than invalid names, as isevident even from the sections quoted in Gartner's publication (p.15). So Gartner made thecommon mistake of not distinguishing between illegitimacy and invalidity (Illegitimate names
are those designated as such in Arts. 18.3 or 63-65, such as homonyms and names based on
INA Newsletter 12/2 - 1990

11

holotypes of other taxa. Invalid names are ones that are not published in accordance with Arts.
32-45).
Discussion: How, then, can the familiar name Pseudoemiliania lacunosa be 'rescued'? The
answer lies in Gartner (1969). Given that Kamptner's original name was invalid, one might
consider whether Gartner in effect introduced a new name. While introducing the, monospecific,
genus Pseudoemiliania Gartner gives a full description and diagnosis, thereby fulfilling part of
the requirements. The only thing apparently lacking, is the designation of a holotype. But
according to Art.7.3 (quoted above) the holotype is the one specimen or illustration used by theauthor. One may argue that by assigning the name lacunosa to Kamptner, Gartner uses theone illustration given by Kamptner (Pl.9, Fig.50), which therefore automatically becomes theholotype.
Even if this argumentation seems tenuous, a final argument to preserve the name
Pseudoemiliania lacunosa is provided by one of the Preambles of the Code, which states:
9. In the absence of a relevant rule or where the consequences of rules are doubtful,established custom is followed.
So the correct full citation for the species is Pseudoemiliania lacunosa Kamptner 1963 ex
Gartner 1969. For an abbreviated citation P. lacunosa Gartner 1969 is also correct.

REFERENCESGARTNER 8., 1969: Correlation of Neogene planktonic foraminifer and calcareous nannofossil zones. Trans. Gulf Coast Assoc. Geol.
Socs., 19, 585-599.
GARTNER 8., 1977: Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy and revised zonation of the Pleistocene. Mar. Micropal., 2, 1-25.
GREUTER W. et al., 1988: International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Koeltz Scientific Books, 328 pp.
KAMPTNER E., 1963: Coccolithineen-Skelettreste aus Tiefsee- ablagerungen des Pazifischen Ozeans. Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien,66, 139-204.

12INA Newsletter 12/2 - 1990